Idaho’s legislators called it quits Thursday with a couple of startling results.After killing a wind farm moratorium bill in committee and negotiating a compromise on the extension of the sales tax rebate for alternative energy in the final days, the House passed two bills on April 5 in favor of wind projects.
H347 would extend the rebate for those projects already in the works to December 31st. H348 would give the Idaho Public Utilities Commission jurisdiction over the avoided cost rates paid to PURPA solar and wind qualifying facilities. Only wind and solar projects producing 100 kW or less would continue to receive the standard avoided costs under PURPA but bigger projects would negotiate a purchase price.
When H347 failed by one vote in the Senate yesterday, the companion bill, H348, was returned to the State Affairs Committee at the request of Sen. Curt McKenzie.
An anti-degradation rule was negotiated this summer and fall. As with all rules it had to go by the legislature. In a rare move, the legislature chose to reject portions of the rule and replace them with H153. In doing so, legislators were acquiescing to a request by the industries involved and supported by the Department of Environmental Quality. They assured the legislators that this action will meet with EPA’s approval. Opponents may still proceed with a lawsuit to challenge the new rule and the statutory changes.
Under NOT SO STARTLING BUT IMPORTANT news: an amendment to Idaho’s current Right to Farm statute was challenged in committee hearings by several people whose concerns centered on dairies and confined animal feeding operations (CAFO). The amended law protects agricultural practices from nuisance lawsuits by adding an extensive list of standard agricultural practices. It does not add protection for negligent practices or change the current regulation of dairies or CAFOs. It also does not interfere with local planning and zoning authority. It passed the House and Senate and was signed by the Governor on April 6th.
Other Legislation That Made It:
H40: PROPANE FLAMING - There was a successful negotiated rulemaking to streamline the process for propane flaming of fields which is necessary for crops like mint but should not be regulated under the regular crop residue burning program. This bill changes the current law so that fees shall not apply to this practice.
H137a: ALTERATION OF CHANNELS OF STREAMS – This amends existing law relating to the alteration of channels of streams to provide that in specified situations, no permit shall be required by the state or any agency or political subdivision thereof from a water user or his agent.
H206: POULTRY – This adds to and amends existing law relating to poultry to provide for the Poultry Environmental Act; to provide for permits and registration of existing facilities; permits for expansions of operations; to provide for the design and construction of certain new and modified wastewater storage and containment facilities; to provide that the review and approval of plans by the Idaho Department of Agriculture shall supersede that of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.
H270: AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT - RULEMAKING – This requires the director of the Idaho State Department of Agriculture to notify the public and the legislature in the event rules of the director are more stringent than federal law or regulations, or propose to regulate an activity not regulated by the federal government. It requires the director to use the best available science and apply well established risk assessment methods (The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality already has similar requirements).
H328: PUBLIC RECORDS – This amends existing law relating to public records to provide that public agencies may charge fees for the cost of filling requests for public records. This legislation was the result of records requests that were more like fishing expeditions and required a large commitment of staff time and copying thousands of pages.
HJR 2: NO MORE WILDERNESS - Idaho shall not support any wilderness designations without having used the public process, which includes the citizens of the state of Idaho, and urging our elected officials to defend this position whenever necessary with the full support of the citizens of the state.
S1001aa: SPECIALTY OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES – This amends existing law relating to all-terrain vehicles, utility type vehicles, specialty off-highway vehicles or motorbikes to revise provisions relating to certain operators of all-terrain vehicles, utility type vehicles, specialty off-highway vehicles or motorbikes on certain roads, to provide that certain unlicensed operators on national forest roads must have completed a safety course, to provide that a certificate or proof of completion shall be in the possession of the unlicensed operator and shall be provided for inspection upon request. This came about as a result of Forest Service action to close roads to ATV use because of concern for the safety of children under the age of 16 operating ATVs.
SCR105: WILD LANDS – This urges the Secretary of Interior to abandon the "Wild Lands" wilderness re-inventory and request the United States Congress to honor the longstanding commitment to multiple use management of public lands in Idaho and the western United States....
And some legislation that did not:
H242aa: EMINENT DOMAIN – This would have amended existing law to provide that eminent domain shall not be used for trails, bike paths, walking paths, greenways, or other alternate or limited use transportation corridors, except where bike lanes, bike paths, sidewalks, walking paths, greenways or other alternate or limited use corridors are adjoining or adjacent to highways, roads, streets, permitted bridges, toll roads, byroads, plank and turnpike roads. This passed the House but was held in the Senate Local Government Committee.
H268: EMINENT DOMAIN – This would have amended existing law relating to eminent domain to provide that certain entities exercising the right of eminent domain in behalf of certain public uses shall demonstrate that such use materially serves the interests of the citizens of Idaho. This bill would have applied to a private company trying to use eminent domain to build a merchant power transmission line that did not serve the interests of Idaho citizens. It was also held in the Senate State Affairs Committee after passing the House.
Showing posts with label Anti Degradation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anti Degradation. Show all posts
Friday, April 8, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Changes to the anti-deg rule raise concerns about the public process among HEET committee democrats
In January, the House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee was given a heads up from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) that a rule change was coming regarding water quality anti-degradation. The rule, and pending legislation would together address requirements of the Clean Water Act that Idaho have an anti-degradation implementation plan as well as the water quality standards already in place. The fact that such an implementation plan does not exists in Idaho is the subject of a lawsuit brought by the Idaho Conservation League, which touched off a flurry of negotiated rule making last summer.
Barry Brunelle representing Idaho DEQ, outlined changes to the originally proposed rule that he said would both pass muster with the EPA and strike language that gave industry cause for concern about stringency. Legislation in the form of HB153 would provide a subsequent mechanism to make connections to the rule and statute by accommodating some areas in the rule that were deleted.
The proposed changes to the rule address:
- Definition of degradation or “lower quality” water
- General permits
- Identification of Tier 2 water limits
- What constitutes significant versus insignificant discharges
Democrat committee members questioned the logic behind adopting a rule prior to hearing about the legislation designed to shore up the rule. They also questioned the rulemaking process. Was there adequate public input? Brunelle responded that between 60 and 80 people participated in the rulemaking sessions.
“I’m not sure how we can vote to reject portions of the rule without understanding what we’re
going to replace it with,” Representative Brian Cronin noted.
Chairman Raybould, IACI and DEQ representatives explained that HB 153, which would be considered by this committee pending the outcome of this rule change, was put together to accommodate areas in the rule that were being deleted. The deletions were from the proposed additions brought about in the rule making process this summer. They don't constitute new rule making, Raybould noted, but a process whereby DEQ and IACI agreed upon changes in the rule that each could live with.
Alan Prouty, speaking on behalf of the IACI environmental committee, noted that the deleted sections represented major actions to those in the “permitting world,” that caused anxiety.
Representative Jaquet proposed a substitute motion to hold the rule, noting that as a member of the committee she had not been consulted about the proposed changes and how they came about.
“I don’t think it’s appropriate when you have negotiated rule making and someone goes through making changes and I think we should hold this rule until people feel comfortable,” she said.
Representative Schaefer asked about the possibility of creating a temporary rule. But Raybould noted the urgency created by ICL's lawsuit and the need to have an anti-degradation plan in place. Without this rule and a companion bill, he said, there is a risk that permits written in the interim would be more stringent than necessary, creating a hardship on those seeking permits.
Jaquet’s motion to hold the original motion failed, and the original motion to approve the water quality standards rule passed, with dissent from all three Democrats on the committee.
Chairman Raybould then presented his companion bill, HB 153 to address the rule changes.
Prouty, representing IACI and the regulated community, outlined the key properties of the bill:
- It maintains consistency with the Federal CWA, in reference to navigable waters of the US
- It defines “degradation” or “lower water quality,” providing replacement language for that which was stricken in the rule
- It provides language about how general permits are defined , clarifying how general permits are evaluated by the department for meeting anti-degradation requirements
- It identifies Tier 2 or high quality water, recognizing that there are certain water bodies that may not meet the definition of high quality water for isolated reasons but otherwise might meet that standard
- It replaces language for what was rejected in the rule regarding significant versus insignificant discharge
Brunelle noted that there were three specific policy areas this bill addresses:
- Where classification of the waters is being looked at with respect to what pollutant for which it was listed, it gives leeway to the department to move a water body from a Tier I to a Tier II definition, in recognition that there may be one element that is off, but that the body has a robust ecology
- It addresses special resource waters
- It includes language defining insignificant discharges. The rule deletes this part. The assumption is that the assimilative capacity could be split up between discharges. This rule would allow the current discharger to be deemed as an insignificant discharger, while future sources of discharges would not.
ICL’s Justin Hayes noted that while the DEQ feels the rule and this bill would pass muster with the EPA, should they be approved, the ICL will challenge them. Referring back to the rule changes that had recently been passed, he noted that they erode the potential that the rule will be approved.
“I think that the rule was very delicately balanced and may have been approved, but with this legislation, it won’t. By passing it you are placing permit seekers at peril,” he said.
Barry Brunelle representing Idaho DEQ, outlined changes to the originally proposed rule that he said would both pass muster with the EPA and strike language that gave industry cause for concern about stringency. Legislation in the form of HB153 would provide a subsequent mechanism to make connections to the rule and statute by accommodating some areas in the rule that were deleted.
The proposed changes to the rule address:
- Definition of degradation or “lower quality” water
- General permits
- Identification of Tier 2 water limits
- What constitutes significant versus insignificant discharges
Democrat committee members questioned the logic behind adopting a rule prior to hearing about the legislation designed to shore up the rule. They also questioned the rulemaking process. Was there adequate public input? Brunelle responded that between 60 and 80 people participated in the rulemaking sessions.
“I’m not sure how we can vote to reject portions of the rule without understanding what we’re
going to replace it with,” Representative Brian Cronin noted.
Chairman Raybould, IACI and DEQ representatives explained that HB 153, which would be considered by this committee pending the outcome of this rule change, was put together to accommodate areas in the rule that were being deleted. The deletions were from the proposed additions brought about in the rule making process this summer. They don't constitute new rule making, Raybould noted, but a process whereby DEQ and IACI agreed upon changes in the rule that each could live with.
Alan Prouty, speaking on behalf of the IACI environmental committee, noted that the deleted sections represented major actions to those in the “permitting world,” that caused anxiety.
Representative Jaquet proposed a substitute motion to hold the rule, noting that as a member of the committee she had not been consulted about the proposed changes and how they came about.
“I don’t think it’s appropriate when you have negotiated rule making and someone goes through making changes and I think we should hold this rule until people feel comfortable,” she said.
Representative Schaefer asked about the possibility of creating a temporary rule. But Raybould noted the urgency created by ICL's lawsuit and the need to have an anti-degradation plan in place. Without this rule and a companion bill, he said, there is a risk that permits written in the interim would be more stringent than necessary, creating a hardship on those seeking permits.
Jaquet’s motion to hold the original motion failed, and the original motion to approve the water quality standards rule passed, with dissent from all three Democrats on the committee.
Chairman Raybould then presented his companion bill, HB 153 to address the rule changes.
Prouty, representing IACI and the regulated community, outlined the key properties of the bill:
- It maintains consistency with the Federal CWA, in reference to navigable waters of the US
- It defines “degradation” or “lower water quality,” providing replacement language for that which was stricken in the rule
- It provides language about how general permits are defined , clarifying how general permits are evaluated by the department for meeting anti-degradation requirements
- It identifies Tier 2 or high quality water, recognizing that there are certain water bodies that may not meet the definition of high quality water for isolated reasons but otherwise might meet that standard
- It replaces language for what was rejected in the rule regarding significant versus insignificant discharge
Brunelle noted that there were three specific policy areas this bill addresses:
- Where classification of the waters is being looked at with respect to what pollutant for which it was listed, it gives leeway to the department to move a water body from a Tier I to a Tier II definition, in recognition that there may be one element that is off, but that the body has a robust ecology
- It addresses special resource waters
- It includes language defining insignificant discharges. The rule deletes this part. The assumption is that the assimilative capacity could be split up between discharges. This rule would allow the current discharger to be deemed as an insignificant discharger, while future sources of discharges would not.
ICL’s Justin Hayes noted that while the DEQ feels the rule and this bill would pass muster with the EPA, should they be approved, the ICL will challenge them. Referring back to the rule changes that had recently been passed, he noted that they erode the potential that the rule will be approved.
“I think that the rule was very delicately balanced and may have been approved, but with this legislation, it won’t. By passing it you are placing permit seekers at peril,” he said.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Anti-degradation rule considered by House Committee
Last week, the DEQ presented the draft rule for an anti-degradation implementation plan to the Senate Resources and Conservation Committee. This week, it was the House Committee on Energy, Environment and Technology’s turn to hear from the DEQ on developing an anti-degradation implementation plan. Idaho has water quality standards which were developed in the late 1980s but this policy did not lay out a specific implementation plan for its anti-degradation policy. This lack is the subject of a lawsuit which has been held pending legislative action. If the state does not implement an anti-degradation plan, the EPA most likely will.
Anti-degradation relates to the maintenance of water quality as outlined in the Clean Water Act (CWA). Under the proposed rule, if a new or increased discharge into a water body is planned, state regulators must do an anti-deg review. A projected “significant” increase in the discharge in the existing permit generates a Tier II analysis. Court cases have fleshed out interpretations of federal requirements of what activities necessitate a full Tier II analysis, so the DEQ’s proposed rule has taken into account these court determinations, such as “insignificant” versus “significant” discharge. What is “significant” is defined as how much in discharges the water in question can accept (its “assimilative capacity cap”) without reducing quality below standards.
At the same time, general permits cover a wide range of activities and need some flexibility. DEQ representatives told the committee the language in their proposed rule reflects this need.
Questions from the committee focused on specific instances where discharge could impact water quality.
Representative Raybould asked about canals discharging tailwaters into rivers. These discharges are not subject to CWA permitting, so wouldn’t have to undergo this determination. Only those projects subject to a Federal permit would be considered.
Representative Harwood’s concern was for farmers. What about field runoff? This rule doesn’t change the agricultural exemption that exists in the CWA. But what if it’s the logging industry that’s in question? In Oregon, Harwood noted, loggers are going to have to get permits if they’re using a road where the sediments are running off into streams. EPA is considering a multi sector general permit that would cover industries such as timber, and the DEQ has already certified a multi-sector general permit.
Representative Hartgen asked about projects along a bank – would they require a permit? In these instances, permits are issued by the U.S; Army Corps of Engineers, and no further review is necessary.
Representative Jaquet asked about sewage treatment plants along a river. As long as the permit in question stays the same, no review is required. Where a city is growing, and therefore its utility discharges are expanding, there would be one required.
In the case of an NPDES permit, Representative Jaquet asked about a case like Clearwater Paper (formerly Potlatch), on the confluence of the Snake and Clearwater rivers in Lewiston. In a case like this, DEQ is asked to certify the project, examining the existing water quality, the designated uses of that water body, and identifying that standards wouldn’t be violated by the proposed activity. The company was certified in 2006. This rule would not change the water quality criteria at all, nor impose a more stringent requirement than exists. It does, however, identify methods for the anti-degradation review and analysis.
But, legislators asked, are we putting the cart before the horse, approving a rule when we need to make changes in the existing statute?
After DEQ representatives presented to the committee and stood for questions, Norm Semanko, Idaho Water Users Association, pointed out that while DEQ proposed a waterbody-by-waterbody review in the draft rule, DEQ staff was conducting a pollutant-by-pollutant anti-degradation review for its 401 certification for EPA’s proposed Pesticide General Permit. He also said that EPA’s general permit is still a draft and that DEQ has stated that probable changes to the final document are significant. Semanko also questioned why DEQ’s comment deadline on the Section 401 certification of January 31 when EPA’s final Pesticide General Permit probably won’t be published until February 14. Semanko also raised another issue with DEQ's anti-degradation review. It states that the requirements of EPA's draft Pesticide General Permit are "above and beyond" what is required under FIFRA, and that continued label use will ensure protection of high quality waters. DEQ's draft certification however, includes eight (8) additional conditions "above and beyond" even what EPA is proposing in the draft general permit.
Raybould noted that we have a date of February 4 to to review and act upon these rules. He was concerned about the legislation that needs to accompany this rule to co-ordinate the definitions in statue and rule. Can we accommodate this request? According to the Attorney General’s office, it’s not unusual to have both a change in a definition in the statute and a rule. Any legislation that we have to adjust these statutes would come up later in the session.
Let’s let the leadership know that we’re facing this, Raybould said..
Representative Nielsen moved that we hold this proposed rule until the call of the chair. The motion passed.
Anti-degradation relates to the maintenance of water quality as outlined in the Clean Water Act (CWA). Under the proposed rule, if a new or increased discharge into a water body is planned, state regulators must do an anti-deg review. A projected “significant” increase in the discharge in the existing permit generates a Tier II analysis. Court cases have fleshed out interpretations of federal requirements of what activities necessitate a full Tier II analysis, so the DEQ’s proposed rule has taken into account these court determinations, such as “insignificant” versus “significant” discharge. What is “significant” is defined as how much in discharges the water in question can accept (its “assimilative capacity cap”) without reducing quality below standards.
At the same time, general permits cover a wide range of activities and need some flexibility. DEQ representatives told the committee the language in their proposed rule reflects this need.
Questions from the committee focused on specific instances where discharge could impact water quality.
Representative Raybould asked about canals discharging tailwaters into rivers. These discharges are not subject to CWA permitting, so wouldn’t have to undergo this determination. Only those projects subject to a Federal permit would be considered.
Representative Harwood’s concern was for farmers. What about field runoff? This rule doesn’t change the agricultural exemption that exists in the CWA. But what if it’s the logging industry that’s in question? In Oregon, Harwood noted, loggers are going to have to get permits if they’re using a road where the sediments are running off into streams. EPA is considering a multi sector general permit that would cover industries such as timber, and the DEQ has already certified a multi-sector general permit.
Representative Hartgen asked about projects along a bank – would they require a permit? In these instances, permits are issued by the U.S; Army Corps of Engineers, and no further review is necessary.
Representative Jaquet asked about sewage treatment plants along a river. As long as the permit in question stays the same, no review is required. Where a city is growing, and therefore its utility discharges are expanding, there would be one required.
In the case of an NPDES permit, Representative Jaquet asked about a case like Clearwater Paper (formerly Potlatch), on the confluence of the Snake and Clearwater rivers in Lewiston. In a case like this, DEQ is asked to certify the project, examining the existing water quality, the designated uses of that water body, and identifying that standards wouldn’t be violated by the proposed activity. The company was certified in 2006. This rule would not change the water quality criteria at all, nor impose a more stringent requirement than exists. It does, however, identify methods for the anti-degradation review and analysis.
But, legislators asked, are we putting the cart before the horse, approving a rule when we need to make changes in the existing statute?
After DEQ representatives presented to the committee and stood for questions, Norm Semanko, Idaho Water Users Association, pointed out that while DEQ proposed a waterbody-by-waterbody review in the draft rule, DEQ staff was conducting a pollutant-by-pollutant anti-degradation review for its 401 certification for EPA’s proposed Pesticide General Permit. He also said that EPA’s general permit is still a draft and that DEQ has stated that probable changes to the final document are significant. Semanko also questioned why DEQ’s comment deadline on the Section 401 certification of January 31 when EPA’s final Pesticide General Permit probably won’t be published until February 14. Semanko also raised another issue with DEQ's anti-degradation review. It states that the requirements of EPA's draft Pesticide General Permit are "above and beyond" what is required under FIFRA, and that continued label use will ensure protection of high quality waters. DEQ's draft certification however, includes eight (8) additional conditions "above and beyond" even what EPA is proposing in the draft general permit.
Raybould noted that we have a date of February 4 to to review and act upon these rules. He was concerned about the legislation that needs to accompany this rule to co-ordinate the definitions in statue and rule. Can we accommodate this request? According to the Attorney General’s office, it’s not unusual to have both a change in a definition in the statute and a rule. Any legislation that we have to adjust these statutes would come up later in the session.
Let’s let the leadership know that we’re facing this, Raybould said..
Representative Nielsen moved that we hold this proposed rule until the call of the chair. The motion passed.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Senate Resources and Environment Committee bones up on anti-degradation
DEQ representatives presented three rules regarding anti-degradation this week to the Senate Resources and Environment committee.
The first of the proposed rules was generated as a result of a lawsuit over the inadequacy of Idaho lack of a water degradation plan, a suit which has since been held, pending legislative action.
Anti-degradation implementation plans and policies are a requirement of the clean water act. DEQ officials said Idaho has the policy but no implementation plan.
For the purposes of the presentation, DEQ representatives outlined some definitions:
- “Total Maximum Daily Load” (TMDL) refers to a restoration standards when water quality is below standards.
- Anti-degradation,” on the other hand, refers to maintaining water quality that is better than standards.
- “Ambient water quality” is what exists now.
- “Assimilative capacity” is what a water can assimilate and not impact it status.
- “Insignificant discharges” are defined as:
- Based on measure of ambient water quality and assimilative capacity.
- Must have a 10 percent assimilative capacity cap
- 10 percent ambient concentration spreads insignificant discharges out to more than one permit
- Insignificant discharge does not have to conduct additional analysis
- Allows agency to focus resources.
For the purposes of this rule, bodies of water have been categorized into three tiers:
- Tier I: Water quality at or below standard. No further impairment of aquatic life or recreational uses are allowed. A TMDL has been developed for Lake Lowell, for example as a Tier I body.
- Tier II: High water quality. Degradation of water quality is allowed with justification (socioeconomic)
- Tier III: Highest quality waters. No degradation allowed. The dividing line between this and Tier II waters is unclear. Some groups have unsuccessfully tried to change a body of water from II to III. In Idaho, we don’t have any Tier III waters, so our focus is on Tier I and II waters.
All waters get a Tier I review – which examines protecting and maintaining the existing water quality and existing uses. Tier II analysis is for activities that may cause degradation: looking at what other source controls are there to ensure that they’re adequate, as well as what is the best option for the money to maintain and protect the existing water quality. A Tier II analysis may allow significant degradation to accommodate important economic or socioeconomic development.
Under this categorization, there are some ACOE Nationwide permits, and maybe industrial Storm water permit under the EPA that might need further Tier II review, but most existing general permits would not need further review.
The pending rule describes how Idaho will implement anti-degradation. There are four main issues:
- Classification of water bodies - which waters get what protection?
- Insignificant discharges - What activities do not need full tier II analysis?
- Tier II analysis – how do we determine if anti-degradation is necessary and important?
- General permits – how do we address anti-degradation?
The rule as proposed is one that DEQ representatives say will withstand court challenges and as such is one that EPA will approve.
The first of the proposed rules was generated as a result of a lawsuit over the inadequacy of Idaho lack of a water degradation plan, a suit which has since been held, pending legislative action.
Anti-degradation implementation plans and policies are a requirement of the clean water act. DEQ officials said Idaho has the policy but no implementation plan.
For the purposes of the presentation, DEQ representatives outlined some definitions:
- “Total Maximum Daily Load” (TMDL) refers to a restoration standards when water quality is below standards.
- Anti-degradation,” on the other hand, refers to maintaining water quality that is better than standards.
- “Ambient water quality” is what exists now.
- “Assimilative capacity” is what a water can assimilate and not impact it status.
- “Insignificant discharges” are defined as:
- Based on measure of ambient water quality and assimilative capacity.
- Must have a 10 percent assimilative capacity cap
- 10 percent ambient concentration spreads insignificant discharges out to more than one permit
- Insignificant discharge does not have to conduct additional analysis
- Allows agency to focus resources.
For the purposes of this rule, bodies of water have been categorized into three tiers:
- Tier I: Water quality at or below standard. No further impairment of aquatic life or recreational uses are allowed. A TMDL has been developed for Lake Lowell, for example as a Tier I body.
- Tier II: High water quality. Degradation of water quality is allowed with justification (socioeconomic)
- Tier III: Highest quality waters. No degradation allowed. The dividing line between this and Tier II waters is unclear. Some groups have unsuccessfully tried to change a body of water from II to III. In Idaho, we don’t have any Tier III waters, so our focus is on Tier I and II waters.
All waters get a Tier I review – which examines protecting and maintaining the existing water quality and existing uses. Tier II analysis is for activities that may cause degradation: looking at what other source controls are there to ensure that they’re adequate, as well as what is the best option for the money to maintain and protect the existing water quality. A Tier II analysis may allow significant degradation to accommodate important economic or socioeconomic development.
Under this categorization, there are some ACOE Nationwide permits, and maybe industrial Storm water permit under the EPA that might need further Tier II review, but most existing general permits would not need further review.
The pending rule describes how Idaho will implement anti-degradation. There are four main issues:
- Classification of water bodies - which waters get what protection?
- Insignificant discharges - What activities do not need full tier II analysis?
- Tier II analysis – how do we determine if anti-degradation is necessary and important?
- General permits – how do we address anti-degradation?
The rule as proposed is one that DEQ representatives say will withstand court challenges and as such is one that EPA will approve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)